Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV

Hans Kruse wrote:
...

but otherwise I _cannot_ see how the _content_ of the option could harm a device that does not want to deal with it.


If it interferes with congestion management elsewhere along the path, it can 
potentially damage
every other packet stream. This is a *very* complex discussion of course.

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), (continued) Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), John C Klensin Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), Hans Kruse Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), John C Klensin Should the IESG manage or not?, Sam Hartman Should the IESG rule or not?, Dave Crocker S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?], Brian E Carpenter Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?], Robert Elz Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?], Spencer Dawkins Re: Should the IESG manage or not?, John C Klensin Re: Should the IESG manage or not?, Jeffrey Hutzelman Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), Brian E Carpenter <= Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), grenville armitage Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option), Jeffrey Hutzelman

Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)